A Contradiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cspb56
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seagal said:
Personally, I agree with OP in that whatever Rome decrees regarding ordaining women, I’ll not argue with. But I just had to pick a nit with this statement. Jesus may not have given specific orders to ordain women, but did he specifically say that women are not to be ordained? And please don’t fall back on the argument that he only chose men. As crowcountry pointed out, there were women in the group sent out to evangelize.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the Church will ordain women to the priesthood in the future, how about it? 😃

Knowing how the Church operates it will take a long time to introduce any new changes. Even if the issue is quite straightforward it will not stop the multitude of the faithfuls to debate on it. I believe the Church has to be sure she does it right after taking into consideration various mitigating factors. Maybe that’s the reason why we are still the same Church even after more than 2000 years in existence.

Anyway, back to answering the OP, I am quite satisfied that the Pope did not contradict Jesus on this issue. He could make a ruling on women ordination if he wanted to but if not he was not contravening anything either. And isn’t this the point that the OP is trying to make – that the Pope contravened Jesus on this issue?

God bless.
 
Have you not heard of a little thing called Papal Infallibility? The Pope can make infallible statements on his own, in certain circumstances. A council is not always required for definitive teaching to take place.

Notable examples - Papal declarations on the Imamculate Conception (“Ineffabilis Deus”) and Assumption (“Munificentissimus Deus”) of the Blessed Virgin.

Most Catholic theologians who’ve expressed an opinion seem to agree “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” was one of them.
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE:

This is one of the more recent reasons given for not ordaining women as priests.

But it is not the traditional one. The real reason is women’s inferior nature.

This can be found in Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Supplement, Question 39:

"Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.
Click to expand...
Since the Angelic Doctor wrote in the 1200s this is certainly not the rationale for the majority of the Christian history. Furthermore, unless you find this cited as a rationale by an official Church document, it is irrelevant and non sequitur.
 
cspb56 said:
In Matthew 16:19 we read “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Back a few years ago the late Pope John Paul II stated the church did not have the authority to ordain women. Now I personally am ambivalent as to the whole womens ordination issue. What the church decides I abide with. But his Holiness’ statement seems to contradict Jesus’ words to Peter. I would be interested in hearing from someone who has knowledge of scripture what they think. I’m not a scripture expert in any way.
Click to expand...
The power of the Pope has limits. Even the most ardent defenders of the Papacy would have to concede the Pope cannot do certain things. No one is going to give him pernission to contradict Christ. The nature of sacerdotal ordination is part of the Sacred Tradition given by Christ to the Apostles. No one, least of all a Pope, is going to run against that.
 
Raphael777 said:
Just wondering…what are you trying to get at with this question inside this thread?
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

Nothing. Merely demonstrating the absurdity of Eucharisted 's argument that we have to receive a specific scriptural “commandment from the Lord” to allow us to or prohibit us from doing things. Clearly, the Church does not require this. (see below)
Originally Posted by Eucharisted
No woman can be ordained, because the Apostles **received no commandment **from the Lord concerning it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

Really? Then please cite the “commandment from the Lord” prohibiting artificial birth control.
 
adriancombe said:
The power of the Pope has limits. Even the most ardent defenders of the Papacy would have to concede the Pope cannot do certain things. No one is going to give him pernission to contradict Christ. The nature of sacerdotal ordination is part of the Sacred Tradition given by Christ to the Apostles. No one, least of all a Pope, is going to run against that.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

The doesn’t “Sacred Tradition” require that priests be male, of the Jewish faith, and have a background in the fishing inductry or tax collection too? Why only insist on maleness?

JPM
 
Eucharisted said:
Red Herring Fallacy. Nice try, though.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

No. Perfectly appropriate. If the argument be made that we can’t allow women priests because there is **no specific commandment of God **concerning this, I pointed out that there is also no specific commandment of God dealing with birth control. I could have used many other examples where this is also true.
 
This makes me wonder…Rome has now opened her doors to married Anglican priests who convert to the Catholic faith, allowing them to continue in their priesthood. Will she next allow female Anglican priests to continue their calling as Catholics? Probably not immediately (or for many, many years), but it seems to follow naturally.
 
adriancombe said:
The power of the Pope has limits. Even the most ardent defenders of the Papacy would have to concede the Pope cannot do certain things. No one is going to give him pernission to contradict Christ. The nature of sacerdotal ordination is part of the Sacred Tradition given by Christ to the Apostles. No one, least of all a Pope, is going to run against that.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE

“…pernission to contradict Christ…” Where did Christ say that women couldn’t be ordained? He gave no such “Sacred Tradition” to his followers.
 
adriancombe said:
Since the Angelic Doctor wrote in the 1200s this is certainly not the rationale for the majority of the Christian history. Furthermore, unless you find this cited as a rationale by an official Church document, it is irrelevant and non sequitur.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE

On the contrary, it’s the original reason for th non-ordination of women. That and Paul didn’t allow them to teach.

Please demonstrate specifically in a writing before 1900 that the Church claimed that the only reason for the nonordination of women was that priests have to be male. That wasn’t the original reason given.
 
Concerning the “ability” of a pope to express a truth or doctrine…

First, all Truth is present in Heaven. Christ is the Truth.

Second, Truth is not changeable. It was and always will be.

Third, the verse in question “… whatever you shall bind…” is also translated (much better) in this way:

“… whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall have been loosed in heaven…”

This better explains that the Truth is already bound in heaven. When the Pope declares the Immaculate Conception, or the male nature of the ministerial priesthood, that is not his Truth, or a new Truth. It is already bound in heaven, and now is revealed on earth.

Infallibility is that negative protection from the Holy Spirit that will prevent the Pope, any Pope, from binding or loosing something in error… in other words, it prevents him from declaring or revealing anything that is not True as something for all Christians in all ages for all time.

So when the Pope does speak with infallibility, EVERYONE is subject to that Truth.

.
 
seagal said:
This makes me wonder…Rome has now opened her doors to married Anglican priests who convert to the Catholic faith, allowing them to continue in their priesthood. Will she next allow female Anglican priests to continue their calling as Catholics? Probably not immediately (or for many, many years), but it seems to follow naturally.
Click to expand...
That is not going to ever happen.

The priests that are married are NOT automatically priests in the Catholic Church. They will be addressed on an individual basis, and like those who entered before them, they will have to be tested and trained in the valid ministerial priesthood of the Catholic Church. Some will have to remain laity.

Their married status, a sacrament, is also something that will determine their level of “responsibility” in a Catholic community. Some may become pastors, some assistants, some may be limited to chancery work etc.

Those who are bishops (and married) will NOT be appointed bishops in the Catholic Church. That is my understanding of those documents which have been released so far.

.
 
MrS said:
Concerning the “ability” of a pope to express a truth or doctrine…

Truth is not changeable. It was and always will be.

This better explains that the Truth is already bound in heaven. When the Pope declares the Immaculate Conception, or the male nature of the ministerial priesthood, that is not his Truth, or a new Truth. It is already bound in heaven, and now is revealed on earth.

So when the Pope does speak with infallibility, EVERYONE is subject to that Truth.

.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE

“It was and always will be.” Shall I start listing the exceptions?

The declaration of the Assumption is an easier example to show “new truth.” When was it first heard of?

“So when the Pope does speak with infallibility, EVERYONE is subject to that Truth.”

Really? Do you believe that it is the will of God that all (Luthran) heretics be burned at the stake? The pope infallibly says you must!

Exsurge Domine. Pope Leo X. Bull. Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther. June 15, 1520

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, **we decree and declare **that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and **under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication… **Condemned thesis: “33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

You do believe that, don’t you?
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE

On the contrary, it’s the original reason for th non-ordination of women. That and Paul didn’t allow them to teach.

Please demonstrate specifically in a writing before 1900 that the Church claimed that the only reason for the nonordination of women was that priests have to be male. That wasn’t the original reason given.
Click to expand...
And do you suppose that you are right on this matter and St. Paul is wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top